State v. Keen

                                    89

Submitted April 2; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed May 6, 2020


                      STATE OF OREGON,
                       Plaintiff-Respondent,
                                 v.
                     SUSAN LYNN KEEN,
                      Defendant-Appellant.
                    Coos County Circuit Court
                      18CR38858; A168836
                                

   Martin E. Stone, Judge.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Francis C. Gieringer, Deputy Public Defender,
Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Robert M. Wilsey, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and
Kamins, Judge.
   PER CURIAM
   Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
90                                               State v. Keen

        PER CURIAM
        Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for
reckless driving, ORS 811.140, and resisting arrest, ORS
162.315. On appeal, she argues that the trial court plainly
erred in failing to acquit her on the resisting arrest charge.
We reject that argument without discussion. Defendant
also contends that the court erred in imposing a condition
of probation requiring her to report changes of address to
the Department of Motor Vehicles within 10 days, which the
court imposed in connection with each count of conviction.
That condition was not announced in open court during
sentencing but later appeared in the judgment. Defendant
contends that it is not reasonably related to the offense.
The state responds that we need not address that contention because the court’s failure to announce the condition in
open court entitles defendant to relief regardless.
         We agree that the condition was not properly imposed
because it was not announced in open court. Defendant contends that the proper remedy here is to excise the condition.
The state responds that the remedy is to remand for resentencing. In similar cases, we have concluded that a remand
for resentencing is appropriate. See, e.g., State v. Anotta, 

, 

 (2020) (remanding for resentencing when special probation conditions were not announced
in open court); State v. Bowden, 

, 

 (2018) (remanding for resentencing where invalid
condition of probation was imposed). On remand, the parties may raise, and the court may address, whether and how
the condition is one that is reasonably related to defendant’s
offenses of conviction.
        Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.